Dodd v. Doe
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-02762
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Dodd v. Doe, Judge Tostrud dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied Dodd’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Khalil Demar Dodd’s action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not comply with orders requiring payment of an initial partial filing fee and submission of a signed complaint. His application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot.
What happened
In Khalil Demar Dodd v. John Doe, Jane Doe, City of Sherburne, US Marshalls, and Sherburne County Jail, Dodd alleged that he was injured after falling from a top bunk at the Sherburne County jail. He said the fall caused him to lose two front teeth and rupture his gums, violating the Eighth Amendment.
The court had ordered Dodd to pay a $29.83 initial partial filing fee and submit a signed complaint. Despite several extensions, he did neither. Dodd objected to the recommended dismissal and argued that court mail had been opened without him being present, but the court said that issue did not explain his earlier failures to follow the orders.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled Dodd’s objection, accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The judge also denied Dodd’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot.
The detailed version
- Dodd v. Doe · No. 0:22-cv-02762
- Eric Tostrud
- May 9, 2023
Background
Khalil Demar Dodd, identified in the opinion as a federal prisoner, alleged that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated after he fell from the top bunk in his cell at the Sherburne County jail. He alleged that he lost two front teeth and ruptured his gums.
The court had ordered Dodd to pay an initial partial filing fee of $29.83 and to submit a signed copy of his complaint. The opinion states that the court granted multiple deadline extensions, but Dodd did not pay the fee or submit the signed complaint. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying as moot Dodd’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
Objection and Analysis
Dodd objected to the recommendation. He argued that mail from the court, possibly the report and recommendation, had been opened without him being present and that tampering with mail was a federal crime. The court concluded that this issue did not affect Dodd’s failure to comply with the earlier orders because those orders predated the report and recommendation. The court also noted that Dodd had sent multiple letters and had timely objected, showing that mail service had not prevented him from responding.
Dodd also asked for more time to comply with the January 3, 2023 order requiring payment of the partial filing fee. He stated on March 22, 2023, that payment was pending, but the court found that he still had not paid more than four months after the payment order. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled Dodd’s objection and accepted the report and recommendation in full. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. It separately denied Dodd’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court did not decide whether Dodd’s allegations established an Eighth Amendment violation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.